By Greg Presland

Thanks everyone for your comments concerning the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.  The Board has reconsidered the issue and at its last regular meeting passed the following resolution:

That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board:

1.      Confirms that the Board’s view is that the Waitakere Ranges parkland should remain part of the Regional Parks network

2.      Invites discussion with the Governing Body to ensure that the Local Board and community have meaningful input into the governance, operational and funding decisions relating to the park

3.      Supports the current environmental baseline established by the Auckland Regional Parks Management Plan

4.      Works to ensure that information concerning the park be made regularly available to local residents.

I hope and trust that this will meet everyone’s expectations.

Can I emphasise that the original resolution was in response to a clear statutory test and that the Board was somewhat “straight jacketed” in the way that it could respond.  The decision that we had to make effectively was that either we have no say in the parkland or complete say.  A hybrid model was technically not an option.

I think the feedback has been very helpful and trust that the new resolution is more acceptable to everyone.  I also wish to personally thank Sandra Coney for her input into the issue.

A related issue that has arisen is how the Board relates to local residents and local groups.  Some are concerned at what they feel is a lack of consultation.  My response is that the information is readily available.  There is far too much information, it is difficult to find and digest and the timeline between release and consideration is only a matter of days but it is there.

Feedback would be welcome.  The Board now has a Facebook page, and I attempt to blog on matters of interest from time to time.  There is an email loop for the local community groups.  But any suggestions on how to to speed up and simplify the dissemination of information and also ease the ability for locals to have input would be welcome.

Auckland’s Spatial Plan has now been launched.

The document is an impressive collection of ideas but short on the technical details which everyone is looking for. It is definitely aspirational and economic growth and environmental protection targets are referred to without really attempting to work out the tensions between the two.

The proposals that will be of most interest to westies are the possible change to the metropolitan urban limit (“MUL”) especially around the Waitakere Ranges area and the future of the compact city concept that has been central to Auckland Planning since the formation of Auckland’s Regional Growth Strategy in 1999. In simple terms the MUL is a boundary that is intended to halt urban sprawl.

The Spatial Plan suggests that the MUL is replaced by “greenbelts”. There is no detailed description of them but the report contains the following comment:

Greenbelts are used to pursue a number of policy goals in Europe and the U.K.  These include identifying clear definitions of boundaries between town and country and maintaining the landscape setting of towns. They have more recently also been used to try to reduce the need to travel by promoting a compact urban form and promoting and steering development to inner city sites and thus limiting urban expansion. While they have a role in protecting ecological, landscape and agricultural values, they do not necessarily restrict all development.”

At this stage greenbelts sound like they will do the same thing as the MUL. I am not sure why there is the desire to change things if the only thing that will be changing is the terminology.

From the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy:

“Metropolitan Urban Limits … are used in the RPS as a technique for minimising the adverse effects of urban development on regionally-valued resources. They were designed primarily to distinguish the major urban areas of the region from non-urban areas for the following reasons:

• to protect identified most highly valued and sensitive environmental areas

• to limit the extent of adverse environmental effects with new urban development

• to promote an urban form which maximises the opportunities for access …”

The MUL does not restrict further development. For instance I understand that in the Ranges Heritage area there are 1500 potential lots that are either vacant or capable of subdivision where further houses can be constructed. The essence of the MUL is that it should provide a clear line outside of which further urbanisation should not occur but that existing development entitlements are preserved.

The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 should provide some protection against the Spatial Plan process being used to advance softening of environmental protection. Section 18 of the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010) states “[t]o the extent of any inconsistency, this Act prevails over the Auckland spatial plan prepared under section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.”   This was a late alteration, before it was made it appears that the intention of the Government was that the Spatial Plan would not be subject to the Heritage Act.

Under the Waitakere City Council there was previously an effort to “soften” the edge of the MUL in the Henderson Valley area. This should be resisted. Dr Morgan Williams’ famous dictum of the Ranges suffering “death by a thousand cuts” must rule against any softening.

The compact city concept is still generally supported. The benefits are a more environmentally sustainable city, it is easier to maintain public transport and the need to drive vehicles is lessened. Central Government does not currently like this and seem to think that unfettered growth should be the norm.

One other issue caught my eye. A question posed was “[w]hat do you think about the idea of allowing more intensive development in areas where people particularly like to live, such as coastal environments?” From the map provided it does not appear that the report is talking about the Manukau Coast and West Coast beaches but if locals are asked then I am sure the answer would be a resounding “NO”.

Greg Presland

Protection of the Waitakere Ranges has been a major issue out west for decades.  Back in 1975 then MP Jonathan Hunt introduced into Parliament a bill that would have provided for effective protection.  Unfortunately with the change of Parliament the bill failed although the issue never went away.

The issue resurfaced in 1999 after the election of the Go Waitakere council.  Attempts to loosen up subdivisional rules failed however and the Go Waitakere councillors were voted out of office.  The next Council was dominated by members of Team West.  I must admit that I was a proud member of that Council.  One of their policies was the meaningful protection of the Ranges.  After a great deal of discussion and consultation the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 was formulated and enacted as a local bill by Parliament with the sponsorship of Lynne Pillay.

The Act was not especially radical.  It attempted to hold current District Plan provisions in place and prevent the gradual erosion of protection in the future, the “death by a thousand cuts” talked about by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams.

There has already been a possible attempt to undermine the protection offered by the Heritage Act.  Under the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill an attempt was made to have the new Spatial Plan the New Auckland Council will have to complete not have to take into account the protective measures of the Heritage Act.  The Spatial plan will take the place of the Regional Growth Strategy and will have a big influence on the setting of the boundary of the City.   The Government said it was a mistake and the problem was “fixed” in the final version of the Bill but one wonders if it was a mistake or intentional.  When in opposition National had promised to repeal the Act.

The relationship between the Spatial plan and the Act will be of huge importance.  If a developer friendly Council is elected the temptation will be to try and reduce the protection offered by the Act.

The consultation for the Spatial Plan will be all important and I cannot imagine how the Super City Council will be able to manage it.  There are likely to be thousands of submissions.  I suspect that the Local Board may have an important role to listen to submissions and to present the views of Waitakere residents and villages.  Eternal vigilence will be required to maintain protection.